11 billion dollar Chopper

saltn00b

saltn00b

Active Member
this thread was not originally about that jet. is it hypocritical? fine. maybe. but seriously, you pass them a lifeline, and the next thing they do is buy a 50 million dollar jet for fly 12 execs around? that is garbage. i think the lifelines need to be fully accountable with reported and proven spending.
 
mgatdog

mgatdog

Member
stdreb27;2940116 said:

.
But accepting your faulty premise, a few hundred K vs a few billion. Yeah, I'm talking crow now.
A $100.00 here a $1.000.000.00 there is still adds up to wasteful spending. You can't trust who you vote for any more.
Click to expand...
 
saltn00b

saltn00b

Active Member
obama did not approve this project, it was already in it's finishing stages when he got into office < 15 days ago ....
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by saltn00b
http:///forum/post/2940127
this thread was not originally about that jet. is it hypocritical? fine. maybe. but seriously, you pass them a lifeline, and the next thing they do is buy a 50 million dollar jet for fly 12 execs around? that is garbage. i think the lifelines need to be fully accountable with reported and proven spending.
Read my OP. This whole thread is about that jet, and the new Marine One.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2939143
Anyone besides me find it ironic, amusing, and a bit idiotic, that obama and all these dems are running around criticising companies and making them stop delivery on a 50 million dollar aircraft. When Lockheed is building him a custom one that has run over 11 billion dollars.
After all, his organization is 1 trillion dollars in the hole, and wanting to spend a trillion more. And this is for an aircraft that is going to fly him to the airport where he is going to board a 747 built to fly him around. (with a c-130 for his cars and identical 747 and a fighter jet escort)
http://www.manufacturing.net/article.aspx?id=183344
This whole thing is hypocritical.
Now I am NOT in support of the orginal bailout. But there in lies the problem, you have the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT telling companies how they can or can't spend money, regardless if it was a good or bad decision. Meanwhile, our government running a 1 trillion dollar deficit, with another trillion dollar spending bill in congress, is forking over BILLIONS of dollars to design to fly around one guy.
 
saltn00b

saltn00b

Active Member
even if the end result is to have a modernized aircraft for the presidential unit, that most people will never have the opportunity to utilize, this project keeps a lot of engineers busy and employed.
 
mgatdog

mgatdog

Member
[stdreb 27
But there in lies the problem, you have the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT telling companies how they can or can't spend money, regardless if it was a good or bad decision. ]
It's the tax payers money thats bailing them out so ya they need to put some restrictions on there salaries and wasteful spending of trips and spa's!!!!!
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by mgatdog
http:///forum/post/2940192
It's the tax payers money thats bailing them out so ya they need to put some restrictions on there salaries and wasteful spending of trips and spa's!!!!!
Well, theoretically it was loaned to them. They are supose to pay it back. That is theoretically.
Originally Posted by saltn00b
http:///forum/post/2940194
so make up your mind, you want restrictions, or you dont?
No of course not, the last thing we need as a country is the most inefficient organization out there telling other organizations how to do business.
 
mgatdog

mgatdog

Member
Originally Posted by saltn00b
http:///forum/post/2940650
well thanks for answering, but it was mostly meant for mgatdog. mostly... :)
sorry I took a part of stdreb27 quote and was answering him.My answer was yes on restrictions on the tax payers money that we loaned them.It should not be used for salaries,trips and spa retreats.After they start making a profit again then hand out the checks.Like I said before I don't agree with the bail out !!!!
 
scotts

scotts

Active Member
I usually try to ignore the "Anything Obama does is wrong threads" but this is too much. How in the H??? can you say that Obama has ANYTHING at all to do with the money that has already been spent. Check out the dates in this article when the contract was first awarded. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...licopter_x.htm You CANNOT say that Obama is having these 23 helicopters built for him. It was Bush that started the building process.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Scotts
http:///forum/post/2940884
I usually try to ignore the "Anything Obama does is wrong threads" but this is too much. How in the H??? can you say that Obama has ANYTHING at all to do with the money that has already been spent. Check out the dates in this article when the contract was first awarded. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...licopter_x.htm You CANNOT say that Obama is having these 23 helicopters built for him. It was Bush that started the building process.

Originally Posted by Scotts
http:///forum/post/2940893
Obama is such an idiot, how DARE he allow the delivery of six helicopters 11 days before he took the oath of office. http://www.pressconnects.com/article...NESS/901090357 The nerve of that guy.
Maybe, possibly, you should read my posts before you start posting in threads. It might help.
I'll point to this one in partiular
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2940116
The problem is this, you have obama running around telling companies they CAN'T take delivery of aircraft (there is a link in a previous post). That aircraft has a 4 or 5 year waiting period. They bought their spot in line and have been paying for their aircraft for years.
Then you have obama in the same situation, he is waiting on an aircraft, that they are custom designing for a very limited use. To fly the prez around. I'll garentee you Citibank's balance sheet looks better than the federal governments right now.
In and of itself, I have no problem with them designing another helocopter to fly the Prez around.
However when he goes out and tells the private sector what they can and can't buy, while the federal government is dropping a few billion to fly the prez around, especially when he has a pork bill going through congress that would double a record budget deficit, it is asinine.
Now you don't have to do any work.
 
scotts

scotts

Active Member
Explain where you came up with this statement.
When Lockheed is building him a custom one that has run over 11 billion dollars.
 
scotts

scotts

Active Member
Originally Posted by Scotts
http:///forum/post/2941273
Explain where you came up with this statement.
You know what Ruben, never mind. You are clearly a person that not only has his mind made up, and shut. But you enjoy confrontation. I am NOT one of those people, so you do not have to respond to me because I am not going to be reading any of your posts. Have a good life dude.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Scotts
http:///forum/post/2941280
You know what Ruben, never mind. You are clearly a person that not only has his mind made up, and shut. But you enjoy confrontation. I am NOT one of those people, so you do not have to respond to me because I am not going to be reading any of your posts. Have a good life dude.

Once again you are missing my point. I'll try this from a different approach. Maybe you'll see where I'm coming form.
To buy a private jet, you literally have to wait for years. Typically it is 4-5 years, even longer in some cases. Unless you buy someone elses spot in line. So in all reality they made the decision to buy this around the midterm elections LOOONG before they began accepting money from the federal government.
The logic is the same flawed logic, that Obama and dems are using to tell other people what they can and can't buy. I'm trying to illustrate the hypocrisy of Obama creating all this negative press about a company buying an airplane. While the government he is head of is still accepting delivery of aircraft for him to fly around on.
I feel that the incorrectly felt "outrage" that is directed towards Citibank, for "spending our money so their execs can fly around" where to be consistent, that "outrage" should also extend to Obama, because it is the same situation.
 
saltn00b

saltn00b

Active Member
i think you are comparing apples and oranges. you seriously expect him to not take delivery of this finished and paid for project?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by saltn00b
http:///forum/post/2941630
i think you are comparing apples and oranges. you seriously expect him to not take delivery of this finished and paid for project?
Citi had paid millions of dollars in deposits and periodic payments for the jet they are no longer taking delivery of.
No, I expect people, to see the flaws in his logic, that I'm applying back on him.
Both parties, have perfectly viable aircraft already in use.
Both cases, they've paid tons of money for the aircraft.
Both cases, they are to fly around an exclusive group of people.
Both cases, they have serious fiscal problems.
Both cases, orders were placed or awarded long before their current woes.
Both cases, USE money out of MY pocket to fund the aircraft.
Both parties, have perfectly viable aircraft already in use.
and my problem.
But both cases illicit opposite responses.
 
spanko

spanko

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2941654
Citi had paid millions of dollars in deposits and periodic payments for the jet they are no longer taking delivery of.
No, I expect people, to see the flaws in his logic, that I'm applying back on him.
Both parties, have perfectly viable aircraft already in use.
Both cases, they've paid tons of money for the aircraft.
Both cases, they are to fly around an exclusive group of people.
Both cases, they have serious fiscal problems.
Both cases, orders were placed or awarded long before their current woes.
Both cases, USE money out of MY pocket to fund the aircraft.
Both parties, have perfectly viable aircraft already in use.
and my problem.
But both cases illicit opposite responses.
Good outline of your thoughts here. If any of the rest of you can't see the logic in this, well...........................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top